On October 5, 2001 05:55 pm, Chris Lilley wrote:
> Daniel Phillips wrote:
>
> > > > I for one, would be happy to wait a while for SVG if it means
> > > > that I can get an SVG without patent encumbrances.
> > >
> > > As I mentioned before, I claim that there are no patent encumbrances.
> >
> > Well, this is wonderful. Then the SVG recommendation should be revised
> > immediately to reflect that.
>
> Its only my claim, not W3Cs claim.
What steps are required to make this W3C's claim as well?
> > > > and determining for each whether RF licensing is available. Then
> > > > analyze the extent to which the remaining non-RF claims apply to the
> > > > recommendation. Next, change the recommendation to avoid infringing
> > > > any such claims.
> > >
> > > Ok, done already.
> >
> > If that has been done then what are we arguing about?
>
> It has been done in that there was a Patent Advisory Group for SVG (as
> provided for in PPF) and they looked at the claims and the licenses and
> could ave advised waiting or changing the spec, but instead advised
> going ahead.
How can I find the names and affiliations of the members of the Patent
Advisory Group for SVG?
> > In that case, the only
> > thing remaining to be done is to remove the remaining references to RAND
> > licensing from the recommendation.
>
> Again, you see the list of patent claims as a list of agreed
> infringements. They can't be removed; they can't be unclaimed.
If some are irrelevant then they should be removed and the patent statement
updated accordingly.
--
Daniel